Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 84403

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that he didn't agree with abortion "under any circumstance."

The candidate, who has promised to work to overturn Roe v. Wade, told NBC's David Gregory that he believes in "life from conception."

"I do not agree with abortion under any circumstance," he insisted.

"Exceptions for rape and incest?" Gregory asked.

"Not for rape and incest," Cain replied. "Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options."

But when it came to cases where the life of the mother was at stake, the former Godfather's Pizza CEO left a little wiggle room.

"If it's the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.

Herman Cain, Crooks & Liars 75 Comments [10/24/2011 3:25:39 AM]
Fundie Index: 77
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2 3
erlando

"Other options"?! What options are those exactly?

It scares me that these thoughts come from a presidential candidate no less.

10/24/2011 3:31:09 AM



Yes, because life threatening situations Ie where pregnancy comes near fatal through medical reason or lack of physical fitness for the mother or knowing that the birth itself would be fatal as all hell.

You can't really remove the fact that incest and rape victims aren't the only reason that are justified for proper abortion. As well those not capable for supporting these children IE accidental pregnancies

And what are these other options? shotgun weddings or banjo extravaganza?

10/24/2011 3:50:54 AM



It is a common "fact" spread by pro lifers that victims of rape or incest do not get pregnant. They like to spread the lie that when a woman is raped the shock causes a physical reaction that blocks conception.

There is ZERO medical basis for this "fact". Its is a conventient way to duck the issue of allowing termination for rape victims.

I learnt this long ago from a Catholic ex girlfriend who was taught this at school. She was also taught that protestants are not christian.

10/24/2011 3:55:00 AM



he should be forced to watch a 9 yr old rape victim die of a uterine rupture from the attempt of carrying a fetus to term. Or watch a woman convulse to death from eclampsia. Both of these females would have been saves had they been allowed to terminate a potentially fatal pregnancy. But then, once there is a parasite in the uterus, the woman/girl are no longer a 'life'.

10/24/2011 3:55:16 AM

OhJohnNo

Well... the last line offers some small ray of hope. Too bad about the rest...

10/24/2011 4:03:27 AM

Balthazar The Wise

I loved it when, as a fundamentalist catholic back in the past, I was asking my fellow travellers "Does our position mandate that a woman die rather than commit abortion?" and they said "What you're supposed to do is try to save both."

I find it annoying to this day that they were trying to sound sagelike about it, as well as pretty much dodging the question altogether.

10/24/2011 4:36:38 AM

whatever

@Erlando
"It scares me that these thoughts come from a presidential candidate no less."

Have a look at some of the other presidential candidates...

10/24/2011 4:45:54 AM

Saika

Did anyone else notice that he said "family" instead of "woman"? Why do I get the feeling that what he really means is "closest male relative"?

10/24/2011 4:54:04 AM

Brain_In_A_Jar

the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options

How? HOW? HOW? HOW?

How does a "low" rate of instances, assuming that to even be true (which itself practically presupposes an acceptable, or at least negligible, finite rate of rape and incest, you sick fuck), bring about the existence of other options? If instances of rape exceed a set level, does everyone somehow forget certain ways of dealing with it? Describe the plausible mechanism by which you suppose this to happen!

10/24/2011 4:58:56 AM



"Not for rape and incest...Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options."

What Cain is really saying:

1) Sucks to be one of the "miniscule" who are raped and become pregnant.
2) The "other option" is to die horribly when said pregnancy turns ectopic.

"I do not agree with abortion under any circumstance," he insisted. "If it's the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision."

What Cain is really saying:

1) I contradict my own arguments.
2) The man owns the woman's body and will make the decision for her.

10/24/2011 5:02:15 AM

Swede

Is he so conservative that he believes, as the Victorians did, that women don't get pregnant unless they have felt "the thrill"?
Is that why he think the percentage is so miniscule?
What other options is he talking about? Suicide?

Should we start prosecute women who have a misscarriage, or a late period?
Why start at conception? Why not prosecute all men who have ever had an ejaculation without having children from it?
What's that? You only want to punish women for having had sesx for fun? What a surprise!

10/24/2011 5:05:59 AM

Arctic Knight

"life from conception."

Have you ever heard of parasitic twins? Two eggs are fertilized and begin to grow separately. At some point in the process, one of those fetuses becomes attached to the other. The second one develops while the parasitic twin become dependent on the host for survival. If life begins at conception, then removing a parasitic twin from the host would be murder because the parasitic twin cannot survive without the host.

How would you handle that situation, Mr. Cain? Would you allow the host to murder it's twin through surgery?

10/24/2011 5:37:55 AM

dionysus

The candidate, who has promised to work to overturn Roe v. Wade

You're not the Supreme Court, you don't have that kind of power, dickhead.

he believes in "life from conception."

Why stop there? Why not declare every sperm to be sacred? After all, all of them are "potential" babies!

"Not for rape and incest," Cain replied. "Because if you look at rape and incest, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options."

What "other options"? A coat hanger? What about if the rape victim is an 11 year old girl who can't carry the fetus to term? "Let her die" (the Tea Party motto)?

If it's the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.

What fucking decision?!? "Should we let her die"? I guess she's screwed if her family is part of the Tea Party then, the party of "let people die".

10/24/2011 5:46:19 AM

Doubting Thomas

the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options.

It doesn't matter if there's just one woman in that circumstance, she should have the right to do what she wants with her body. Typical "pro-life" attitude: "Who cares if a few women are inconvenienced? God needs those babies!"

10/24/2011 6:31:11 AM

TGRwulf

GDIAF you fundie scumbag.

10/24/2011 6:34:23 AM

Doctor Whom

What's Herman Cain's position on abortion? What time is it, 9:37? Then he's pro-life.

10/24/2011 6:37:13 AM



You see ladies and gentlemen Herman Cain is for less Government control.

10/24/2011 6:44:35 AM

Anon-e-moose

Roe vs. Wade was signed into law in 1973 by Repubican president Richard 'I am not a crook!' Nixon.

I emphasise 'Repubican'.

1973. 2011. 38 years.

More than infinite occasions for the Religious Right, via their bumchums the GOP, to have exerted their lobbying power, to effectively blackmail the Repubican party into repealing RvW: 'Get rid of this law, or you'll never see the White House again!'.

But they haven't. Why is that? Simple. Roe vs Wade has been the GOP's most valuable weapon in their political arsenal, ensuring votes from said Religious Right ('Fool some of the people all of the time', and all that jazz). Otherwise, if they got what they wanted - abortion banned under any & all circumstances - their candidates would never get elected again.

And anyway - even if you did get what you wanted, Hermie-boy & co. - how are you possibly going to stop women from travelling to, say, Mexico or Canada, to have an abortion, hmmmmmmm?!

And isn't being anti-abortion purely Catholic doctrine? And there's me thinking that you Protestants were - by definition & virtue of your anti-Rome 'beliefs' - supposed to oppose Popery in all it's vile forms; so why are you Protestants trying to out-Catholicise the Roman Catholic Church?! [/Fridge Logic]

--EDIT--

@MarylandBear

I thought that such legislation had to be signed into law by the current president? At the UK's State Opening of Parliament, the Queen reads out any new laws that are to be debated, voted on & ultimately placed into the statute book by MPs in the House of Commons, thus giving her approval to such.

10/24/2011 6:57:16 AM

MarylandBear

@Anon-e-moose:

Roe vs. Wade was signed into law in 1973 by Repubican president Richard 'I am not a crook!' Nixon.

Huh? Roe v. Wade was a Supreme Court decision. Nixon had nothing to do with it.

10/24/2011 7:03:24 AM

Papabear

Well, as a pizza company CEO, I guess Mr. Cain is qualified to decree at what point life begins.

10/24/2011 7:08:14 AM

Hertzyscowicz

By the way, would "life from conception" mean that you can take out life insurance on the embryo and collect in full after a failed pregnancy?

10/24/2011 7:12:45 AM

Rohanwotan2

No, you must carry rapists child to term because I believe in Jeebus and Compassionate Conservatism!

Fucking retards.

10/24/2011 7:12:48 AM

Mister Spak

I saw a video of Cain being interviewed on Fiction News about this. He kept saying he was pro life, and this decision should be made by the woman and her family. The interviewer kept protesting "but that's pro choice" after which Cain would say "no, I'm pro life". They went through several rounds of this.

The wing-interviewer just sat there silently with his mouth hanging open.

10/24/2011 7:32:39 AM

StoneSpiral

Looks like I'll still be voting for Obama next election.

10/24/2011 7:44:49 AM

Godless heathen

Ignoring all the rubbish in this post (heard it all before) but it makes me wonder how many people who are pro-life are also pro-guns?

10/24/2011 7:45:22 AM
1 2 3